Hm. Let it be Violent Shit (1989) then. Andreas Schnaas got (slightly) better over the years, but that movie is practically devoid of any charm low budget movies usually have and tries too hard while remotely not having enough skill or passion.

So... lacking any reasonable amount of perspective, how would you compare Jerry McGuire (acting wise; production value; story and script , etc...) to...

Mac and Me (1988)? I'm going to assume you probably think this 95 minute long Coca Cola Classic and McDonald's product placement ... was snubbed by the Academy for Best Picture? Is that a fair assumption?

Dimos Dicoudis, well, to be honest Mac and Me (1988) had a resurgence of sorts thanks and even received a sort of cult status, mainly due to being popularized by several prolific movie reviewers on the Internet, if for all the wrong reasons.

I would say that poll is actually shaping to be interesting because of how different the movies are.

Ha, interesting. Despite I consider Eraserhead (1977) dangerous movie which doesn't have full understanding of its own methodology I consider it a very solid directorial debut too, even if it gave me a few panic attacks.

And while When a Stranger Calls (2006) is far from original it's a nice little slasher flick, I don't seen aything too bad with it. Then again it's me and I consider notorious Prom Night (2008) watchable and not completely devoid of charm (it won me over with opening scenes set to "Time of the Season").

This is a great idea - it certainly is no easy task but it will yield some highly interesting results. As people have already mentioned above, it will be interesting to see how much this deviates away from the IMDb Top 100 worst :D

I think the concept of a "worst movie ever" should go beyond its badness, some movies are bad but the way they are bad is interesting or at least entertaining, the worst movies are those you can't even finish or maybe movies that elicit the strongest negative response. I remember I hated and hated "Life of David Gale" because of that stupid ending, it's a decent movie until the last minute.

But anyway, if I've got to nominated one, the worst movie I saw, it would probably be Rules of Engagement (2000)

Woody Allen said that after listening to Wagner, he always felt an urge to invade Poland. There was a line of truth behind that joke, one that echoes the opinion of many Holocaust survivors. Not that I put the same experience on the same level, Wagnerian music can be appreciated regardless of any historical contextualization, I think that watching a movie like "Rules of Engagement" will inspire a similar urge to go shoot some Arab civilians or kick them out of the country or just call them by the names they (supposedly) deserve.

Obviously, there are two ways to look at this film. If you're an Arab, you're probably going to join that angry crowd and call it "one of the most racist films against Arabs Hollywood ever made". If you're not an Arab, you might consider it a flawed but not uninteresting military trial movie questioning the methods of the US Marines Corps, with an interesting friendship between two Vietnam veterans played by Samuel L. Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones. Well, it would have been interesting if the Marines were really being unethical, but then the Marines Corp. would never have permitted it. It was "A few Good Men" again.

Which leads to the premise of the film, the whole trial revolves around the fact that the man charged to evacuate the US Embassy in Yemen deliberately killed 83 civilians, even using the word with M and F so cherished by Jackson, to call the people. At that point, the film had already crossed the line, because I can't recall any other instance that made a villain out of people, children and women included. I guess it could only be done for Arabs and/or Muslims. And then the McGuffin of the film, the piece of evidence is a missing tape that will prove that the civilians were armed, again, even the children.

Sure, the film isn't anti-Arab, it is anti-Extremist, no kidding. As soon as the kids carried guns, they were a threat, they were killers and they "deserved" to be killed. That's not the element I blame on the script, what I condemn is the idea that such a story had any particular relevance, that there was a need to find a case to justify a mass-killing of civilians. To make a movie where Samuel L. Jackson the most popular US actor, defended by Tommy Lee Jones, who's not hated either, would take crap from everybody because he ordered to kill women and children, so that the emotional 'Gotcha' of the film, would be the proof that the hero was right, after all. What a relief! American honor is safe, it was the Arabs all along.

Some say the film was prophetic, anticipating 9-11, how is that exactly? Did women and children pilot these planes? 9/11 was the result of a context starting with Muslims being ruled and killed by Barbarian regimes, and the military interventions didn't make things easier. But people have an inclination to accept Arabs and Muslims as fully barbarians and irremediably bad guys. I'm not saying that's the intent of William Friedkin, but what was he thinking? He's brandishing the authorization he got from the King of Morocco to shoot the film, not to mention that many extras were Moroccans, so they were part of it, it's not the Asian-looking guys passing for Libyans in "Back to the Future".

But, as a Moroccan, I don't give much credit to Friedkin's defense, my country was the scenery of many movies that weren't exactly Arab-friendly, I even saw the shooting of some "Homeland" scenes in my neighborhood, and I was surprised to see that the place I grew up with could pass as Iran. But in the long history of Arab and Muslim shaming, this film is probably the culmination. I have seen it many years ago, I have loose memories, but I'll never forget the ending and the infuriating effect it had. It was the only instance of a movie that made an aggressive statement against a population, and not having a single redeeming character, it was American Marines vs. Arab Civilians.

In 1993, people wept with the little girl from "Schindler's List", she was the living incarnation of the tragedy lived by the Jews. Arabs deserve reverse symbols, the one little girl who's seen dying in the film carried a weapon, I'm a father of a little girl and I don't want to venture into an analysis that would lead me to the conclusion that one deserved to die, but the film wants me to do so. As for the prophetic argument, those who claim that the film somewhat anticipated 9/11, well, how about an even that happened the very year of the release. Let me refresh your memory.

In 2000, a Palestinian kid died under the arms of his fathers who was begging everybody to stop shooting. It was proved that an Israeli soldier did it, and I'm sure it was an accident, but even that kid's death met with denial. Supporters of Israel said it was a set-up, he was killed by one of their own, I even remember a French actor saying that he read the father was ready to sacrifice another son, no one questioned the veracity of this information. Now, there was a kid, he wasn't armed, and he was killed but no one made a symbol out of him, outside the Arab world, it's like the Western audiences would rather have fictional Arab villains than genuine victims, and that's the core of the problem.

Same shtick, when Muslims die in a bombing, it's because they wanted to, when their kids die, it's because they were used as shields. There's already a strong anti-Arab resentment and movies like "Rules of Engagement" make it worse. it will teach them to always be careful about Arabs, even women, even little girls, who knows? They might hide grenades inside their dolls.

Can a Genre be in here? Movies on Political figures. Loved JFK (Good). Disliked it too! (Worst) Why you say. Oliver Stone took it upon himself to fudge the facts. Once he did this all of the characters and the name of the film should have changed. It became fiction. Or a Tagline disclaimer at least. But no. We are to beleive his truth! And his only. Because of this type of filmmaking, some people will take it as fact. This is why it has my "9 Rating", based on entertainment value. But can be on my worst list too for other reasons.

I gave "American Sniper" a four because at least, the character study was interesting... but overall it's the same.

You can tell the respect an artist has toward a culture when he makes an effort to portray some of its objectively positive aspects in a favorable way, or at least neutral. Like he did with the Japanese with his "Iwo Jima" series.

But no, Iraqi or Arabs can't afford the luxury of one redeeming quality in this film. Fair enough, let's just say it wasn't the point, the film wanted to embody Kyle's personal vision, but then how about showing (instead of telling) that the hero wasn't killed by an Arab and that the misuse of weapons doesn't have a flag.

Because when the film ends, it's like the best way to honor Kyle's memory is to share his contempt toward Arabs, I can't believe a filmmaker of Eastwood's stature, intelligence and yes, humanism, could let that go. But I guess that's what made the film successful. A common enemy is the best social cement.

Not only with the lowest quality of acting and production possible, but a film that tries to educate about drugs in the worst possible way, scaring, and missinforming and making something impossible to take seriously.

It is a shame this doesn't have a poster, because I find it hard to believe there can be something worst. I rated it 2 instead of the 1 I gave to this one, but if you want another then I'll nominate Eegah, which is also quite terrible, altought it fails to be morally questionable so that earned it the extra point.

Eegah seems terrible. I added this one. There are movie posters on internet from Weird World of LSD. I thought I could upload an image, but there isn't a plot description as well. So the voters can't read what this movie is about. So you can add those things if you want your first pick. But maybe this movie don't deserve this attention, I don't know.

And once again ... to those who truly lack a proper sense of cinematic prospective:Doomsday Machine (1972): Quote:

The Chinese have created the titular Doomsday Machine Why? I don't know. In response, the Americans change a planned mission to space by switching three male astronauts for three female astronauts. Why? To assure the continuation of the human race just in case the Chinese destroy the world. As expected, shortly after lift-off, the Earth is destroyed. Can these seven astronauts make it to Venus to start a new human civilization?

Stephen Atwood, oh, I saw this one in 2016 when I was binging on public domain movies. Not exactly a masterpiece, but all things considered it was not the worst peacemeal movie I've ever seen. That said... I can't remember much of it, for some reason, but I don't think that rewatch will be of much help either: it's probably just forgettable because it makes little sense and collapses under its clumsy editing. I believe that twist was a product of trying to edit that mess using the stock footage.